Pages

Wednesday, 25 June 2014

Here is the press release for our Nature paper, released June 25, calling for a moratorium on oil sands expansion. This means no loss of current jobs in the oil sands. But it does mean a return to sanity from this selfish rush to accelerate global warming, ocean acidification and ecological destruction - events that will lead to huge economic and social costs according to a just-released study by the World Bank. It does mean that we should not build new pipelines like Keystone XL, Northern Gateway and others.Press release:

A Comment published today in the journal Nature calls for a moratorium on new oil
sands projects in Alberta, Canada due to flaws in how oil sands decisions are
made. The authors are a multidisciplinary group of economists, policy
researchers, ecologists, and decision scientists. They argue that the controversy
around individual pipelines like Keystone XL in the US or Northern Gateway in
Canada overshadows deeper policy flaws, including a failure to adequately address
carbon emissions or the cumulative effect of multiple projects. The authors
point to the contradiction between the doubling of the rate of oil sands production
over the past decade and international commitments made by Canada and the US to
reduce carbon emissions. “The expansion of oil sands development sends a
troubling message to other nations that sit atop large unconventional oil reserves,”
said lead author Wendy Palen, Assistant Professor at Canada’s Simon Fraser
University. “If Canada and the United States continue to move forward with
rapid development of these reserves, both countries send a signal to other
nations that they should disregard the looming climate crisis in favor of
developing the most carbon-intensive fuels in the world.” The authors point out
that oil sands development decisions
(e.g. pipelines, railways, mines, refineries, ports) made in isolation artificially
restrict public discussions. Debate in the news media and during hearings for
individual projects are limited to evaluating the short-term costs and benefits
to the local economy, jobs, environment and health, and do not account for the
long-term and cumulative consequences of multiple projects or of global carbon
pollution. Co-author Joseph Arvai, Professor and Research Chair in
decision science at the University of Calgary, explained the problem. “Individual
projects – a particular refinery or pipeline – may seem reasonable when
evaluated in isolation, but the cumulative impacts of multiple projects create
conflicts with our commitments to biodiversity, aboriginal rights, and
controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Though we have the knowledge and the
tools to do better – to more carefully analyze these tradeoffs and make smarter
long-term choices – so far governments have not used them.” A moratorium would
create the opportunity for Canada and the United States to develop a join North
American road map for energy
development that recognizes the true social and environmental costs of
infrastructure projects as well as account for national and international
commitments to reduce carbon emissions. Anything less “demonstrates
flawed policies and failed leadership”, the authors state.

Contact:

Wendy J. Palen

Department of Biological Sciences

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby, BC, Canada

Thomas D. Sisk

Landscape Conservation Initiative

School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability
Northern Arizona University